Arakhin 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

Another explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and of the dispute between the Mishna and the beraita concerning houses in walled cities:

Everyone—

both Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and both the Mishna and the beraita—

agrees that there is a possibility of interest

as well

is prohibited.

Rather, in the beraita in which Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree, it is referring to a case where they stipulated from the outset that if the seller redeems it within three years, the buyer will return to him the value of the produce that he ate [and the lender requires the borrower to repay the entire loan first, before deducting the value of the produce that he ate; and if he cannot repay the entire amount, the property will remain in the lender’s possession—Tosafot, Bava Metzia 63a]. And this is interest on the condition that one maneh be returned,

and here,

in the beraita,

they disagree concerning interest on the condition that it be returned: the Master

the first tanna

holds

that even interest on the condition that it be returned

is prohibited,

because at the time that he ate, he ate interest and transgressed the prohibition—Rashi, Bava Metzia 63a.

But the other Master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds that

interest on the condition that it be returned

is permitted!

As for the Mishna and the beraita concerning houses in walled cities—which do not involve interest on the condition that it be returned, since if the seller redeems the house, the buyer does not give him money for his dwelling in the house during that year—they disagree about this: The tanna of the Mishna holds that there is not even a possibility of interest here, since the property came into the buyer’s possession by way of a sale and not by way of a loan. Whereas the tanna of the beraita holds that, in any event, since this is interest if the seller redeems it, there is a possibility of interest here, and therefore it is full-fledged interest; it is merely that the Torah permitted it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If the seller dies, his son may redeem it.”

And we are astonished:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

It might have been said—

had the Mishna not stated that his son may redeem it—

“And if a man sells”

“a dwelling house in a walled city, and its redemption shall be,” etc.,

the Merciful One said, and this one,

the son,

did not sell it,

and therefore he is not included in the phrase “its redemption shall be”; therefore,

it teaches us

the Mishna that the son may redeem it. And the reason is:

“And its redemption shall be”—

the Torah did not write “he shall redeem it,” which would imply that the one who sold it is the one who redeems it—

in any event

it implies that its redemption shall be, even through another person, namely, the son who did not sell it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If the buyer dies, it may be redeemed immediately from his son.”

And we are astonished:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

It might have been said—

had the Mishna not stated that it may be redeemed from his son—“And if he does not redeem it, etc., then the house shall stand, etc., permanently

for the one who purchased it,” the Merciful One said,

which implies that the house becomes permanent for “the one who purchased it” [if he does not redeem it within the year], and if it is redeemed, he returns it; but one who did not purchase it does not return it.

And this one,

the son,

did not purchase it,

and we would therefore say that he does not return it. Therefore,

it teaches us

the Mishna that it may be redeemed even from his son. And the reason is:

“And its redemption shall be”—in any event,

which implies that it may be redeemed even immediately from another person who did not purchase it from him.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The year is counted for him only from the time that he sold it.”

The Sages taught:

If the Torah had written [“And if a man sells, etc., and if he does not redeem it”] “until the completion of

a year,”

and it had not written “until the completion of a year

for him,”

I would not know what the law is when he sold it to the first buyer, and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer:

whether

the

year is counted for the first buyer,

so that once a year has elapsed from the homeowner’s sale to the first buyer, he can no longer redeem it; or

whether the

year is counted

for the second buyer,

so that until a year has elapsed from the second sale, when the first buyer sold it to the second, the homeowner can redeem it.

When it says: “until the completion of a year for him”—

this refers to the first seller, about whom the verse spoke at the beginning of the passage—

you must say

that the

“year”

mentioned by the Torah is

for the first buyer

and not for the second.

And we raise a question: When the homeowner sold it to the first buyer, and the first buyer sold it to the second, and it was not redeemed until a year had elapsed from the first sale,

for whom

of the buyers

does the field become permanent? Shall we say that once a year has elapsed for the first buyer, the field becomes permanent only for the first buyer, so that the homeowner can no longer redeem it from him, but it does not become permanent for the second buyer—so that the first buyer cannot redeem it from the second buyer—until a year has elapsed from the second sale? Or shall we say that once a year has elapsed for the first buyer, it becomes permanent for the second buyer, and the first buyer cannot redeem it from the second buyer?

? Shall we say that once a year for the first has elapsed, the field becomes permanent only for the first buyer, so that the homeowner can no longer redeem it from him, but it does not become permanent for the second buyer—so that the first buyer cannot redeem it from the second buyer—until a year from the second sale has elapsed? Or shall we say that once a year for the first has elapsed, it becomes permanent for the second, and the first buyer cannot redeem it from the second buyer?

Rabbi Elazar says: For the first buyer

who purchased it, it

becomes permanent

after a year has elapsed from the first sale, and the first buyer may redeem it from the second buyer.

Rabbi Yohanan said: For the second buyer

who purchased it, it

becomes permanent

after a year has elapsed from the first sale, and the first buyer may not redeem it from the second buyer.

And we challenge this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar,

the reason is understandable,

as according to him—

that is, with regard to the first buyer’s acquisition—

we count

the year, since a year elapsed only with regard to his acquisition; therefore, the property becomes permanent for him and not for the second buyer.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, what is the reason?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: What did the first buyer sell

the property

to the second buyer

who purchased it from him?

Every right that would come into his possession —including the right of the property becoming permanent—he sold to the second buyer, so that the second buyer would stand in his place and the property would become permanent for him [Rabbeinu Gershom].

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: If one sold two houses in walled cities—

in a leap year, followed by a regular year—

one

of them he sold

on the fifteenth of the first Adar, and one

of them he sold

on the first of the second Adar: This one,

the second,

that he sold

only on the first of the second Adar,

once the first day of Adar of the following year arrived—

which is a regular year—he had already

completed a year,

since a full year had elapsed from day to day, from the first of Adar to the first of Adar.

But this one,

the first,

that he sold

already

on the fifteenth of the first Adar, did not complete a year until the fifteenth of Adar of the following year,

even though thirteen months had elapsed from the time of his sale. The reason is that we count from day to day, from the fifteenth of Adar to the fifteenth of Adar.

And we challenge this:

Ravina raised an objection: But let

the first buyer say to the second buyer: How did the house become permanent for you first, when

I began by kindling the fire [I kindled the fire]—

that is, I made use of my house—

before you [before you], so how did it become permanent for me after you?!

And we answer:

Because the second buyer said to him,

the first buyer:

You—

who purchased it in the first Adar—

entered the intercalated month [you entered the intercalated month]! Therefore, you will lose, since the word “complete” is expounded as including the intercalated month,

whereas I—

who purchased it in the second Adar—

did not enter the intercalated month [I did not enter the intercalated month]!

And Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: If two

firstborn

lambs were born to him

in a leap year followed by a regular year,

one

was born

on the fifteenth of the first Adar, and one

was born

on the first of the second Adar: This one,

the second,

that was born

only

on the first of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the following year arrived—

which is a regular year—

he had completed a year,

and he is warned to offer it within its year, as it is written: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it [the firstborn] year by year.”

This one that was born

already

on the fifteenth of the first Adar did not complete a year—

so that he would already be obligated to offer it—

until the fifteenth of Adar of the following year

35. Ravina raised an objection: But let

the lamb born first say to the second lamb:

I began eating vegetables [I began eating from the field’s vegetation]

before you [before you], so how can your year be completed before mine?!

And we answer:

Because he said to him,

the lamb born second said to the lamb born first:

You—

who were born in the first Adar—

entered the intercalated month [you entered the intercalated month]! Therefore, your year will be completed only after thirteen months,

whereas I—

who was born in the second Adar—

did not enter the intercalated month [I did not enter the intercalated month]!

And we are astonished:

Why do I need this additional statement [two statements],

after all, this is the same thing?!

Rabbi Abba bar Memel already taught us something similar concerning the year for houses in walled cities.

And we answer: The principal novelty of Rabbi Abba bar Memel’s second statement is that even in the case of the year of a firstborn, the intercalated month must be added. Therefore, the firstborn does not complete a year until the fifteenth of Adar, and not on the fifteenth of Shevat, which is twelve months from the time he was born. And this is a novelty, for

it might have been said: There,

in the case of houses in walled cities,

as “complete” is written,

we derive from this that the intercalated month is to be added,

but here,

in the case of a firstborn,

as “complete” is not written,

we would not

add the intercalated month at all.

It teaches us

Rabbi Abba bar Memel that it is added. And the reason is that

“

“you shall eat it”

year

by year,” which is stated with regard to a firstborn, and “until the completion of a

year for him,” which is stated with regard to houses in walled cities,

are learned from one another [are learned from one another] by means of a gzera shava. Just as the intercalated month is added in the case of houses in walled cities, so too it is added in the case of a firstborn.

We learned in the Mishna:

“When it says ‘complete’

to include the intercalated month,

Rabbi says: To give him a year and an intercalated month.”

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning houses in walled cities: “And if he does not redeem it until the completion of a

complete year.”

Rabbi says:

This teaches that he

counts three hundred and sixty-five days, corresponding to the number of days

in the

solar

year, and then “the house shall stand, etc., permanently.”

And the Sages say: He counts

only

twelve months from day to day,

as we establish them—when the month begins—so that they constitute a lunar year. And “complete” teaches:

If the year is intercalated, for him—

for the seller—he is the one whose year

is intercalated, so that he may redeem it until the completion of thirteen months.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Once the twelfth month arrived and it was not redeemed,”

it became permanent for him.

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And if he does not redeem it, etc., then the house shall stand, etc., permanently for the one who purchased it, for his generations.” And they explain:

“Permanently”—

completely,

so that the field becomes permanent for the purchaser.

Alternatively: “Permanently”—

to include a gift,

so that its law is like that of the sale of a house in a walled city.

And

what is the reason,

that is, how do we derive the law of a gift from “permanently”? And we explain: It should have written

“permanent,”

but it wrote

“permanently,”

to include a gift.

The Rabbis stated this law—that a gift is like a sale with regard to houses in walled cities—

before Rav Pappa,

and they added:

According to whom

is this law?

Not in accordance with Rabbi Meir! For if it is Rabbi Meir,

it is he who

said with regard to the return at the Jubilee of an ancestral field:

A gift is not like a sale

that returns at the Jubilee.

He said

to them,

Rav Pappa: Even if you say

that this law is according to

Rabbi Meir, it is possible to distinguish between houses in walled cities and an ancestral field, and

here it is different,

in the case of houses in walled cities,

as the Merciful One expounded “permanently,”

to teach that even a gift is like a sale.

The Rabbis said to Rav Pappa—and some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa—

and they challenged him:

But with regard to the Jubilee,

of an ancestral field,

as it is written:

“In this Jubilee year

‘you shall return’

each man to his ancestral property,” and they derive: The Torah should have written “he shall return,” but it wrote “you shall return”—

to include a gift. And Rabbi Meir,

who holds that a gift is not like a sale,

does not derive

from this verse that a gift is included, because he does not understand the derivation “he shall return—you shall return”; and likewise, he does not understand the derivation “permanent—permanently” [Rabbeinu Gershom]!

Rather, this is certainly the case:

the one who includes a gift as a sale through “permanent—permanently”

is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir!

The Sages taught: One who consecrates

for the maintenance of the Temple

a house among the houses in walled cities may redeem it immediately, and may redeem it forever,

since it does not go out to the priests at the Jubilee like the consecration of an ancestral field [Rabbeinu Gershom].

If another person redeemed it immediately from

the consecrated property,

that other person’s law is like that of one who purchased a house in a walled city: If

the twelfth month arrived

from the time that he purchased it from the Temple treasurer

and it was not redeemed

by the owners—from him—

it was—

that is, it became—

permanent for him,

the buyer.

And we explain:

From where are these matters derived?

Shmuel said: As the verse states: “And the house shall stand, etc., permanently

for the one who purchased it,” and they derive:

even

for one who purchased it

from the consecrated property, it becomes permanent.

And we challenge this:

Let it become permanent

even before another person redeemed it,

for the consecrated property

itself, so that after twelve months it could no longer be redeemed from the consecrated property [Rabbeinu Gershom]. Why, then, does the verse state “and may redeem it forever”?

And we answer:

The verse states: “And the house shall stand, etc., permanently for the one who purchased it

for his generations,” which excludes

the consecrated property, which has no generations, and therefore it does not become permanent

for the consecrated property.

It is written: “And the house shall stand, etc., permanently for the one who purchased it, for his generations,”

“It shall not go out at the Jubilee.”

And they ask:

Why do I need

“It shall not go out at the Jubilee” with regard to the owners, since “permanently for the one who purchased it” has already been written?

And we explain:

Rav Safra said: It is necessary only for one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities and the Jubilee occurs during its year—

before it became permanent in the buyer’s possession—so that it does not return to the owners at the Jubilee. Since it is within its year,

it might have entered your mind to say that it goes out [it goes out]

at the Jubilee

and returns to the owners. Therefore,

it teaches us

the verse that even within its year

“it shall not go out at the Jubilee.”

Mishna:

At first,

before Hillel’s enactment,

it was the practice that

the buyer of a house among the houses in walled cities

would hide on the day

on which the twelve months from his purchase were completed,

twelve months—

which was the final day on which the seller could redeem it from him against his will—

so that the house would be

for the house to be

permanent for him.

Hillel enacted

that

it would suffice for the seller

to deposit [to cast]

his money,

with which he wished to redeem it,

in the chamber

of the consecrated property in the Temple courtyard, and the house would thereby be redeemed.

And he would break

the door

of the house that he had sold to the buyer,

and enter. And whenever that person [the buyer] wished,

he would come and take his money

from the chamber.

Gemara:

Rava said: From Hillel’s ordinance

it can be learned: that one who says to his wife,

“This is your get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz”—

and if you do not give them, the get is void—

and she gave them to him

the husband,

with his consent

of the husband, this is considered a giving and his condition has been fulfilled, and she is

divorced.

But if she threw the money into her husband’s house

against his will, she is not divorced,

since giving against his will is not considered giving.